Connecticut General Life Insurance v. New Images of Beverly Hills

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant contends that plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the local “meet and confer” rule prior to filing a motion to compel discovery requires the original July 5th, 2001 discovery order to be vacated, together with all sanctions eventually flowing from that order. However, in the previous Zilka incarceration appeal, this court affirmed the precipitating discovery orders “in all respects.” Law of the case thus precludes reconsideration of the validity of the district court’s discovery order. See Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388,1392 (9th Cir.1995).

“We have stated that a good faith dispute concerning a discovery question might, in the proper case, constitute substantial justification to reverse a Rule 37(b)(2) sanction.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant, however, cannot show that its discovery disputes were really made in good faith; indeed, the district court specifically found that they were not. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, nothing about this court’s prior order validates any of appellant’s initial discovery objections.

Moreover, the sanctions were not imposed…